the end of net Neutrality means????

[brettdale]

Does it mean that search websites can block certain sites that may be pro/negative
towards one particular political party???

They can put search results up the top to the sites they political favour?

[chillfactor]

1. Good questions...

I do not understand this issue either.

[unblock]

2. what it's meant to do is let internet service providers charge you more for faster internet

they'll be able to slow things down for people who don't pay extra for faster internet.

note that they'll be able to slow things down for low-paying customers not merely by using slower technology, but also artificially, by effectively stealing bandwidth to give it to the premium-paying customers.

[LonePirate]

3. Yes. They can also charge you to access the search site and charge you to see or use the results.

Of course, they might block the site altogether, such as Verizon might do to Google because Verizon owns Yahoo.

[TexasProgresive]

4. We tend to think as receivers of content

If I remember correctly this issue is more about the deliverers of content. Companies like Netflix will be charged a higher rate to deliver streaming services.

It’s moot to me because I am on satellite with a small monthly data cap.

[haele]

5. It means certain carriers can group or block access to certain online content.

One of the driving reasons that Net Neutrality became a "thing" in the first place is when Verizon decided it wanted to have it's own online payment app, and was planning not to let mobile users or businesses to access Google Wallet if they were on a Verizon Network.
The other issue was the plan that some carriers were planning to "tier" the internet access they would provide in both cost and bandwidth availability - different plans for streaming services, social networking, businesses, etc., with links and apps relegated to those particular accounts.

So for the average consumer, no Net Neutrality means that if you were, say, someone who teleworked or had a home internet business (using higher than average streaming bandwidth), and you had a couple high school kids that used the internet for class, gaming, and social networks, your home and mobile internet plans would include several different packages to meet everyone's requirement and cost close to double or triple more than normal cable/internet/phone packages do now.
You'd have to choose between surfing the internet for shopping or news aggregation, and working.
Or choosing between the ability to search the internet for information and spending half an hour a day on Facebook or Twitter catching up with your social circles.

For the average small business or tech type (developers, makers, etc...), it means having to pay far more to compete on equal footing with the larger businesses and corporations who can control a greater bandwidth share from a service provider. Your little proprietary graphics design or SAAS development home business server maintain a P2P website and storage for clients?
Sorry, if you are a start-up and haven't also paid the big bucks to get licensed to "partner" with Adobe or some other major cloud service owner, you are going to be throttled by your provider. The internet bandwidth necessary for R&D and other innovations might only be available for the big corporations who can afford the carrier service fees.

Haele

[Joe941]

6. It means rePukes could pay ISPs to block DU.

[haele]

7. I doubt the ISPs would be concerned this far down in the political forums...

It's ultimately about money.
Sites like BBC and Slate, maybe. Sites like Wikipedia and Snopes, probably.

But smart Fascists prefer to have sites they can "keep an eye on" and stir shit up in for their opposition than to just shut them down. DU will go on; it might be throttled as a lower tier site, but they'll not block it.

Haele